Just 10,000 Hours To Become An Expert In Anything

10 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

"And No Such Thing As A Natural" it says

That set off my BS detector so loud that I didn't read the article.

EDIT UPDATE: I read the article. It is interesting, and -- however it may seem to lean -- shows that opinion on the matter is not unanimous.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998520].message }}

lanfear63

10 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

That set off my BS detector so loud that I didn't read the article.

Not even with hard statistical evidence to support that premise! This was not a joke artical but a report on properly researched data. A bit short sighted no dismiss without reading?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998534].message }}

MissTerraK

10 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Not even with hard statistical evidence to support that premise! This was not a joke artical but a report on properly researched data. A bit short sighted no dismiss without reading?

TB is right.

How do you think child prodigies exist if not for being born a natural?

Take Mozart for example.

He learned to play the piano at 3 and was publicly playing several instruments at age 6 as well as composing music at that tender age as well.

Terra

Thanks
4 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998615].message }}

Frank Donovan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

"And No Such Thing As A Natural" it says

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Not even with hard statistical evidence to support that premise! This was not a joke artical but a report on properly researched data. A bit short sighted no dismiss without reading?

TB was reacting to the quote in your first post. I read the article, but couldn't find that particular sentence - was that your own interpretation?

The piece references Gladwell's take on Anders Ericsson's 1993 paper in which the idea of 10,000 hours of practice first appeared.

Athough the article's focus is to describe the challenge taken on by an amateur golfer to become as good as a pro, and mentions Ericsson's research concerning a group of violin students, it doesn't conclude that there's no such thing as a natural. In fact, it references David Epstein's book The Sports Gene in which it's argued that natural talent certainly does exist.

My understanding of the article's main thrust was that the golfer in the experiment was hoping to make up for by deliberate and sustained practice, what he lacked in innate talent.

Frank

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998771].message }}

lanfear63

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

TB was reacting to the quote in your first post. I read the article, but couldn't find that particular sentence - was that your own interpretation?

The piece references Gladwell's take on Anders Ericsson's 1993 paper in which the idea of 10,000 hours of practice first appeared.

Athough the article's focus is to describe the challenge taken on by an amateur golfer to become as good as a pro, and mentions Ericsson's research concerning a group of violin students, it doesn't conclude that there's no such thing as a natural. In fact, it references David Epstein's book The Sports Gene in which it's argued that natural talent certainly does exist.

My understanding of the article's main thrust was that the golfer in the experiment was hoping to make up for by deliberate and sustained practice, what he lacked in innate talent.

Frank

A great chess grandmaster can beat almost anyone. A computer can now beat any human grandmaster, was only a question of time!

A great violinist as opposed to a highly competent one is distinguished by the inflection and interpretation of his or hers playing. The highly competent one can LEARN that style of playing. even surpass it if they really want too.

A sportsman can learn from another acclaimed one by studying their techniques and body movements. Their may however be limitations on this due to the acclaimed one being taller, have more reach and physical strength. However take Bjorn Borg for example. No one could beat him. I am willing to bet that even with him in his prime now, things have moved on. players, even shorter ones train harder, adopt different strategies, use different diets and probably could have beaten him easily.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998818].message }}

Frank Donovan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

A great chess grandmaster can beat almost anyone. A computer can now beat any human grandmaster, was only a question of time!

A great violinist as opposed to a highly competent one is distinguished by the inflection and interpretation of his or hers playing. The highly competent one can LEARN that style of playing. even surpass it if they really want too.

A sportsman can learn from another acclaimed one by studying their techniques and body movements. Their may however be limitations on this due to the acclaimed one being taller, have more reach and physical strength. However take Bjorn Borg for example. No one could beat him. I am willing to bet that even with him in his prime now, things have moved on. players, even shorter ones train harder, adopt different strategies, use different diets and probably could have beaten him easily.

So...are you saying there's no such thing as a natural? Because you made it sound like the article you linked to is saying that, which actually, it isn't.

.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998824].message }}

lanfear63

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

So...are you saying there's no such thing as a natural? Because you made it sound like the article you linked to is saying that, which actually, it isn't.

.

This from the artical

"The psychologists didn't see any naturally gifted performers emerge and this surprised them. If natural talent had played a role it wouldn't have been unreasonable to expect gifted performers to emerge after, say, 5,000 hours."

I found that surprising. Years ago I argued with my father for natural talent, he said nope, all learned. This seems to contradict my premise. So I presented some arguments FOR these new findings here and they actually seem to make sense. I wanted to spark comments and debate from those in favor of natural talent though to see what you have in evidence to support it.

Perhaps they need to conduct this experiment over a more diverse range of subjects, would be interesting.

Thanks

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998976].message }}

lanfear63

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

TB is right.

How do you think child prodigies exist if not for being born a natural?

Take Mozart for example.

He learned to play the piano at 3 and was publicly playing several instruments at age 6 as well as composing music at that tender age as well.

Terra

Yes their are a few exceptions, geniuses with high IQ's that absorb info, make connections, learn quickly. They are few and far between though. A genius often just makes connections to things that have been figured out before and has the knack of slotting them together, join the dots and creates a new theory!

The feature though talked mainly about the surprising results that even people with a pre-disposition or talent/flair for the subject who had practiced for 4000 hours were still not as good as those who had done 10000 hours.

My father who played piano quite well through years of practice went though a phase of buying and trying out different instruments. One was a banjo. He gave it to me to try. Having learned a few guitar chords I figured out a few notes/strums for dueling banjo's in a few minutes. Did that make me a banjo player, nope, years of practice would.

There is nothing that cannot be learned given time, dedication, practice and enthusiasm.

Even Mr Mozart had to learn music notation to be able to write down the tunes flowing through his head. Must have spent every waking hour mastering it!

Thanks

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998777].message }}

MissTerraK 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Then he put in his 10,000 hours and became great.

Ken,

I'm not disagreeing that 10,000 hours can make you an expert in something, practice makes perfect, right?

I'm just disagreeing that there is no such thing as a natural. That just isn't true.

Terra
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998844].message }}

joe golfer

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

TB is right.

How do you think child prodigies exist if not for being born a natural?

Take Mozart for example.

He learned to play the piano at 3 and was publicly playing several instruments at age 6 as well as composing music at that tender age as well.

Terra

Fun fact: Mozart also started an early version of the Warrior Forum called
"der Krieger-Forum." They even had "das Off-Topic Forum."

Thanks

Signature

Marketing is not a battle of products. It is a battle of perceptions.
- Jack Trout

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999737].message }}

travlinguy

10 years ago

Déjà vu all over again...

http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ours-rule.html

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998807].message }}

thunderbird

10 years ago

OK. I read it. Very cool. I don't disagree that practice improves performance for innately talented and not-so-talented alike. However, it is plain incorrect to say that some individuals aren't born with a disposition to excel in certain things. As you said, true genius (not the same as "IQ" though it often overlaps) is rare. Most of us mere mortals have to practice a lot in areas of our choice to compensate for lack of innate talent.

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8998810].message }}

hardraysnight

10 years ago

i qualify for expertity in breathing and sleeping

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

These guys helped me with the feedback for my site

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999040].message }}

lanfear63

10 years ago

Originally Posted by hardraysnight

i qualify for expertity in breathing and sleeping

I have done my 10,000 hours in that too. :-)

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999071].message }}

Claude Whitacre

10 years ago

Ian; It isn't that the subject isn't interesting, but it's already been discussed at length. 10,000 hours is roughly 10 years at 3 hours a day practicing, training, doing....in most things, I'd think you'd be an expert at this point.

That assumes that you are learning, and not just doing.

Originally Posted by travlinguy

Déjà vu all over again...

http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ours-rule.html

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999275].message }}

lanfear63

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Ian; It isn't that the subject isn't interesting, but it's already been discussed at length. 10,000 hours is roughly 10 years at 3 hours a day practicing, training, doing....in most things, I'd think you'd be an expert at this point.

That assumes that you are learning, and not just doing.

Shucks missed that one!, So its all been done before. Thought I had found an original one there! Oh well. Perhaps do one on Deja vu, but thats probably been done before, or has it! Perhaps we just all think it has been done before! Seems strangely familiar.

Even the fluffy bunny thread where the bunnies bug the woman was done twice.

Anything left?

So... Blah Blahh Blahh.. Blaaaahhh (oh thats been done before too)

Thanks

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001711].message }}

bizgrower

10 years ago

Personally, I like the twenty hours rule - naturally.

The first 20 hours -- how to learn anything: Josh...

Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999492].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Well, I'm gonna say that there are naturals in any area - and that, while they might also take education and practice to give them full expertise of a subject, some can do it in less.

Then I'm gonna look at this in a mirror, and say there are some areas that one can spend their 10,000 hours in and never achieve full expertise.

Part of that is aptitude for a field. My sister is an artist. She can draw like no tomorrow. I don't "get" it. I've been told how to shade, how to look at the intrinsic shapes, colors, yadda, yadda - but I just plain don't "get" it. You could force me into 20,000 hours of practice and ed and I still wouldn't "get" it. It's a dead area in my brain. I can sculpt (in a remedial fashion), but I don't get the 2D at all. There's also an interest factor, though, I believe.

If you aren't interested in something - you aren't going to ever be an expert in it. The drive just won't be there for you. If you have both strong aptitude and interest, you have the drive and might be able to cut expertise time into fractions.

I give the article an F -- however, I will give them an A for getting the grant funds necessary to play at having a study going. Easy living, good money.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999620].message }}

Kydee

10 years ago

If you focus and work hard, that should definitely make you an expert in 10k hours.

Thanks

Signature

"Fashions fade, style is eternal." - Yves Saint-Laurent
Kydee Style - GPlus Kydee

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8999848].message }}

Just 10,000 Hours To Become An Expert In Anything

Trending Topics

Best AI for spell checking & grammar (2024)?

Google Ads, landing pages, and Clickbank links

Carry out better target audience research

A Very Strange Internet Problem

YouTube gets shopping display tools and affiliate partnership updates